Former NZ Herald columnist Rachel Stewart has had her guns and ammunition confiscated by the police because, they claim, she has demonstrated 'a tendency to exhibit a hatred towards the transgender community'. But that claim has not been backed with evidence.
LAST WEEK former NZ Herald columnist Rachel Stewart was paid a visit by two police officers who presented her with papers and then proceeded to confiscate her firearms, ammunition and gun licence. Her alleged 'crime' was that she threatened violence in a Twitter reply she wrote to a John Richardson (@JohnThorGDF). Richardson had described women as 'grubs'. Stewart's response would not of been to everybody's taste but anyone who is familiar with her sense of humour will know that it comes with a strong dose of satire.
But this is not as straightforward as the police simply not enjoying Rachel's sense of humour. Stewart says she takes exception to the police telling her that she has demonstrated 'a tendency to exhibit hatred towards the transgender community' and implying that she would be prepared to engage in gun violence against the transgender community.
How did the police arrive at this conclusion? They have provided no evidence. While Stewart has well known differences of opinion with the transgender community, especially on the issue of sex self identification, this does not amount to hate speech. For those concerned that the Labour Government's proposed hate speech legislation could be employed to suppress political debate, the police action against Stewart is a disturbing possible 'preview' of what might lie ahead.
Stewart is also a supporter of Speak Up for Women, a group campaigning against the Labour Government's proposed sex self identification legislation. While the group has always maintained it is not opposed to the transgender community it has been consistently confronted with a liberal left that does not want to debate the issue of sex self identification and continues to work to shut down any discussion.
Speak Up for Women sought an judicial review when both the Auckland City Council and Palmerston North City Council cancelled their venue bookings at short notice. The case against the Auckland Council was settled out of court and the meeting was reinstated and was held at the Auckland Town Hall on June 27.
Speak up for Women's case against the Palmerston North City Council saw the magistrate also rule in favour of the group, ruling that Speak Up for Women could not be 'rationally described as a hate group in the sense that term can be relevant in making decisions about the extent to which a particular group sheould be allowed to exercise its rights of free speech and assembly'.
On Saturday a RNZ news report described Speak up for Women as an 'anti-trans group'.
Rachel Stewart herself as been the regular target of abuse and harassment which included a campaign to have her sacked as a columnist for the NZ Herald. In 2019 Spin Off contributor and occasional RNZ commentator Morgan Godfery declared that Stewart 'shouldn't have a place in public life'.
Labour MP Louisa Wall has described her as a 'trans-exclusionary radical feminist', a view also shared by the Green's Marama Davidson and Golriz Ghahraman. But, apparently, such a view is a matter of opinion and not hate speech.
Hi.
ReplyDeleteThanks for covering this but there are a few errors. Rachel is not a supporter of Speak up For Women as far as I am aware. Neither is she is in disagreement with the transgender community because it is not of a unitary view. Many transgender people both in New Zealand and overseas side with Speak Up For Women on the question of self-identification and take the imaginative leap to understanding why women might wish that entry into the category 'woman' is well controlled. A good proportion of the most vociferous voices against SUFW appear to be heterosexual men whose joy at having women they feel justified to shout at and intimidate is quite something. You are right though that by including alleged 'transphobia' in the evidence sheet the police have inserted themselves squarely in the political concerns that gender critical women have about the hate speech legislation. Transphobia is used frequently as a catch all and of course includes all those women who seek to retain sex-based rights meaningfully in Human Rights Legislation. The current hate speech discussion document seeks also to include 'gender identity' into not only the hate speech legislation but also the human rights act. Gender identity comes with baggage. Whilst everyone deserve the protection of HR legislation using language that fits different groups of people to demand everyone also believes in a gender identity - a quality than no-one can be demonstrated to possess is to bind people to an opportunistic and unprovable aspect of so-called gender theory.
I initially wrote that Rachel was a member of SUFW. Rachel told me she was supporter but not a member.
Delete